I am sure that forensic science uses as much of the latest scientific findings
and tools as geology does. Time is not the sole factor in determining what
constitutes a good and understandable prototype of historical science. Also
long time scales involved in geological studies makes its finding more
ambiguous than those in forensic science. In the statement of the theory of
evolution proposed and posted in this list, it was indicated that evolution is
a fact. My understanding of the word evolution includes the creation of life
from non-living matter and the evolution of man from lower forms of life.
Unless we clarify the meaning of the word "evolution" then we will be going
around in circles. Again, my claim it that you can suppose whatever you want
but cannot claim absolutely that your assumption is establishes by the fact.
The most one can claim is that your assumptions are consistent with the facts.
But on that account, the the Biblical story of creation can also claim that!
Moorad

>===== Original Message From Michael Roberts <topper@robertschirk.u-net.com>
=====
>Am I reading Moorad correctly? It is so totally WRONG. The prototype of
>historical science is geology and goes back over 300 years.
>
>He wrote "One makes assumptions
>> and views the existing data to confirm the assumptions. "
>
>Who does? This is simply not how geologists or so-called evolutionists work.
>I t is not easy to unravel so serious a blunder.
>
>If one sees how a geolgist works or traces out the progress over 300 years
>one will see how they use observations to make predictions (or retrodictions
>as I call them in contra distinction to Keith Miller - who is say ing the
>same as me). Then further observations are made whether to confirm or deny
>thsoe predictions. The Pakistani whale is a good example.
>
>A historical example is the elucidation of the Lower palaeozoic in the 1830s
>by Sedgwick and Murchison. By 1831 the geological column had been worked out
>down to the Old Red Sandstone soon to be called the Devonian. Both S and M
>predicted that if you worked down the column through the Old Red you would
>get to lower and older strata and hopefully this was to be conformable.
>Murchison went to S Wales and near Ludlow the local vicar T Lewis showed him
>a cross section where Old Red passed down into older rocks (to be called
>Silurian). Their prediction held good. Ironcially S went within 2 miles
>where Old Red lay conformably on these older rocks but never saw them. He
>then went round N Wales with a lad called Darwin and looked for Old Red so
>he could go down the column into the older stuff. He was unlucky as there
>was no OLd REd, so his task wasnt easy. (See Jim Secords "Controversy in
>Victorian Geollgy" for details. )
>
>evolutionary theory assumes
>> something and cannot conclude unambiguously that the assumption is a fact.
>
>This is simply not true. Evolution is based on a cumulative argument from
>all the evidence and is ultimately abductive - an argument from the best
>fit. It is easily refutable whether by finding human footprints in the
>Mesozoic - hence Paluxy, dinosaurs in the Cambrian etc. further if Galapagos
>finchs and peppered moths did not vary the way they do then evolution is a
>non-starter.
>It was in 1838 that Darwin first argued for evolution in his private
>notebooks. He did so by arguing from the succession of life which the
>(creationist) geologists had worked out from the fossil record. He argued
>that the general view of progressive creation should be replaced by holding
>one or a few initial creations and then a gradual change over time.
>Essentially he saw thsi as a better fit than prog creationsim. So it was not
>assumption as Moorad claims.
>
>Of course the usual allegations about assumptions in geology and evolution
>makes good pulpit material to indoctrinate the pew fodder and convince them
>that six day creationism is the only true christian answer.
>
>For Howard - Special creation is meaningless - either God creates or he does
>not . Whatever He creates is special, so why waste a word? I suspect it has
>some roots in the early 19 Century
>
>Michael Roberts
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
>To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>; "Keith B Miller" <kbmill@ksu.edu>
>Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 3:31 PM
>Subject: RE: Evolution Statement
>
>
>> The prototype of historical science is forensic science. One makes
>assumptions
>> and views the existing data to confirm the assumptions. But one ought not
>> confuse the assumptions with the conclusions----evolutionary theory
>assumes
>> something and cannot conclude unambiguously that the assumption is a fact.
>The
>> predictions are backward in time, whereas in an experimental science like
>> physics, the predictions are mostly forward in time. Moorad
>>
>>
>> >===== Original Message From kbmill@ksu.edu (Keith B Miller) =====
>> >I have stated this several times in previous posts -- historical science
>IS
>> >predictive. Hypotheses are continually being tested by comparing
>> >expectations of the hypotheses with future observations. It doesn't
>matter
>> >that the events being reconstructed are in the past, only that the
>specific
>> >observation or data was unknown to the investigator previous to the
>> >prediction. This is done all the time. In my own research I am
>> >continually testing my expectation against new observations. If they
>prove
>> >out, my confidence in my hypothesis increases, if they don't that
>> >confidence is weakened. If expectation are frequently not met, the
>> >hypothesis is abandoned. That is the way all scientific theorizing
>works.
>> >
>> >The recent discovery of the walking whales from Pakistan are a great
>> >example within the field of paleontology.
>> >
>> >Keith
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Keith B. Miller
>> >Department of Geology
>> >Kansas State University
>> >Manhattan, KS 66506
>> >kbmill@ksu.edu>> >http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/>>
>>
>>